Call me cynical but when I attend the launch of an initiative that is billed as a partnership between top environmental organisations and leading consumer brands, and it turns out that all those brands are manufactured by one multinational, the word 'greenwashing' springs to mind.

Especially when the slick presentations by newscaster Sir Trevor McDonald and broadcaster Joanna Yarrow fail to mention the company or its brands, and instead bang on about how we can all do our little bit to save the planet, and then launch some awards to recognise local green heroes.

The brands in question - Ariel, Fairy Liquid, Lenor and Flash - are all from the Procter & Gamble stable. From next week they will be displaying the green-coloured Future Friendly logo which is intended to inform shoppers that by buying these products they will save energy, water or reduce waste. What consumers won't know is that the logo - which is approved by the Energy Saving Trust, Waste Watch, Waterwise and pop star-backed Global Cool - is only available on Proctor and Gamble products.

The reason these charities are supporting this blatant marketing campaign is because of supposedly environmentally-friendly measures adopted by these brands. Ariel, for example, has been running a 'turn to 30C' campaign; Flash now only needs cold water to clean our surfaces; Lenor's smaller bottles, as its annoying TV ad keeps telling us, has led to 14,000 less lorry trips (not buying it could lead to a much bigger reduction I shouted at the TV); and Fairy, just by being longer-lasting than other washing up liquids, we are told, saves millions of bottles.

But is this any justification for carrying a logo that consumers will naturally assume means these products have been independently verified as more eco-friendly than their rivals, and even those niche brands, such as Ecover, that have prided and priced themselves on their green credentials?

When I asked Dr John Bailey, P&G's fabric and homecare external relations manager whether rival brands could apply to have the charity-backed logo on their brands, he replied: "it's too early days to give an answer". But he said it would expand to cover more P&G brands. He told me that since 1990, the company has reduced its C02 emissions by 65%, was one of the first companies to set up a sustainability department eight years ago, and that it has been running the Ariel cool clean campaign for four years. The reason for the campaign he explained was because the biggest use of CO2 in the life cycle of the product is by consumers washing their clothes.

Julia Hailes, author of The New Consumer Guide, welcomes the new logo. She says people are misinformed about what makes a detergent 'green'. "The concept of a green detergent based on biodegradable ingredients is redundant because legislation means they all have to meet high levels of biodegradability," she says.

"The biggest environmental issue when it comes to washing powers is the temperature people wash at. P&G have done an awful lot to get people to turn to 30C."

Hailes, it should be noted sits on a P&G external advisory environment committee. She does however think manufacturers could do more to save the planet, such as educating consumers that they don't need to wash their clothes so much, but then that may involve us buying less of their products she concedes.

Ethical Consumer, the research association that rates products according to their record on human rights, environmental sustainability and animal welfare is less generous about Future Friendly. Ariel, Flash and Fairy each score just 0.5 out of a possible 20 in its rating system. It has not looked into Lenor. In contrast, Ecover, scores 11.5.

An Ethical Consumer spokeswoman urges consumers to treat the non-independently verified Future Friendly logo with scepticism. "This is an initiative of Procter and Gamble and we should be very sceptical."

Ecover is more gracious to its competitors. "We always pleased to hear about new initiatives which allow consumers to embrace a more ecological lifestyle," said its statement."We are delighted that the Future Friendly initiative has taken steps to make changes to allow consumers to behave in a more sustainable way. We are pleased to see efforts by conventional brands to open up the consumer debate on sustainability. At Ecover we've been listening to our customers for 27 years to make ecological products that work for them and the environment; and we will continue on our journey together."

I have to say I'm with Ethical Consumer most of the way, but what about the Ariel campaign? I'm now washing at 30C. I think they deserve some credit for that, but I also think they need to be a lot more upfront about what initiatives like Future Friendly are about. Aren't they just marketing campaigners that plug into consumers' increasing concerns about the environment? Not the sustainable initiatives they claim to be?